narniafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (film)
The actual title of the films follow the following convention: The Chronicles of Narnia: So this page should be renamed The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. [[User:Faethin|'Faethin']]''te audio'' 00:31, March 17, 2010 (UTC) Out of universe (In response to Storyseeker1's edit and edit summary) There is some plot information in this article, but it clearly does not act as if Narnia were a real place, so it would seem to be in violation of Section 2 of the Wiki Format. I thought to rectify this with the out of universe notice. In a way, the article is based entirely outside of the books and movies, in that it does not act as if the events in them are real. It seems to me that the main purpose of putting the notice in an article is to designate that "all of its information lies outside the fictional Narnian universe," i.e., it does not act as if it were written within the Narnian universe (where, of course, the books events are historically true). So, to my understanding of the wiki format, the out of universe notice is a perfect solution for this page. Unless there is a separate policy for book and movie pages already in place, I think that either 1) the article needs an out of universe notice, or 2) the article needs to be written in past tense and as if the movie were a record of true historical events. Arvan, what is the policy? Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 23:54, August 29, 2012 (UTC) How can this article be based ''outside ''of the movies, when it is about the movie itself? And what information is it exactly that's out of place? And keep in mind that there's a section that describes the differences between the book and the film. Storyseeker1 (talk) 00:14, August 30, 2012 (UTC) :Essentially, The OOU template is for use on articles that are not about specifically Narnian subjects (authors, actors, companies, and the like). The films and books are outside the Narnian universe but are instead mediums by which that universe is presented; the movies, being at times at odds with the official book canon, are given a special template. Storyseeker1: I mean that the article fails to act as if Narnia were real; in that sense, it is "outside" the fictional Narnian universe (essentially, in violation of section 2 of the wiki). Arvan: That makes sense; I just didn't know. Should the page be edited so that it is in the historical past tense, then? Or does it get an exemption because it is a page about the movie itself? Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 01:54, August 30, 2012 (UTC) :Book and movie pages are exempt; instead of describing a part of history we're describing a plot, which is usually done in present tense. ~Arvan :Great! Should the format adapt notice for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader be removed, then? Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 01:56, September 1, 2012 (UTC) :I don't think so; all the other books' articles are written in past tense. ~Arvan ::Really? I just checked, and it looked like the plot sections of SC, LB, HB, MN, and VDT are all in the present tense, and only VDT has the adaption notice. PC and LWW are both written in the past tense, but in such a way that the articles are somewhat awkward to read. Sorry to harp on this; I don't care which tense you pick, but I would love to go fix all the book pages, and I want to know for sure what the policy should be before I go start changing things. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 18:00, September 1, 2012 (UTC) :::Ha! LWW and PC are the two I checked, of all the books! In that case it'd be more work to change to past tense than to switch those two to present tense. I think, in general, plot summaries are given in present tense, so I guess that's the direction we should take. I personally like the past tense, it seems more readable, but I guess that's just me. ~Arvan 05:27, September 4, 2012 (UTC) I am a Narnia fan without sufficient cause to make an account, but I think that this is an important issue. The main issue is what is "in" or "out of universe," but you all seem to be having trouble grasping the essence of those (no offense, of course). C.S. Lewis is considered to be "in universe," and rightfully so. He mentions talking to Lucy in Dawn Treader. Because Lewis is in, I believe that the books are, too, as actual things, not just media. Lewis is a historian, the Chronicles are his writings. That's why there is no template for the books. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that the books' pages should be edited to reflect historical records, not children's novels, but that is beside the point. The movies, however, do not exist according to any canon. Therefore, they should be given the "out of universe" template over the whole article, as with actors. But then the "movie" template should be placed over the plot summary, to acknowledge that the happenings in the movie do exist in Narnia (when not in direct conflict with the book, which of course they are, but I'll assume you all understand). That section of the article should be written as historical. But any direct reference to the movie should be written as non-canonical. Whether my position is determined to be correct or not, I think this issue needs to be cleared up, especially as real-life things seem to be taking a more prominent place on here. 22:24, September 2, 2012 (UTC) :I agree with you, though I think putting the out of universe template on movie pages (save for The Lion Awakes) is unnecessary. When added to the movie templates things start getting clunky and unpleasant to look at, and I think most people know that the movies are not a part of the Narnian universe. It's more the actors, and the friends/family of C.S. Lewis that need the OOU template. 05:27, September 4, 2012 (UTC) My current understanding of the decisions expressed herein: Movies are considered out of universe (and therefore have permission to use the present tense, talk about actors, refer to a plot, etc.) but do not need the template because, well...they're special. Books are actually in universe (as Lewis mentions talking to the characters), so they also do not need the template, but they should correspond to all of the usual WikiFormat regulations. To clarify, this is not how things currently are; this is how people seem to be saying things ought to be. Any naysayers, speak up now before I go start changing pages. P.S. 50.54.254.141, get an account! That way we have a way to refer to you other than 50.54.254.141. Besides, there's an LOTR wiki, too. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 00:23, September 5, 2012 (UTC)